MUGUNTHAN A/L MANICKAM v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the burden the section 37(d) presumption of possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 casts on an accused: a bare denial will not rebut it on a balance of probabilities, and an unrebutted presumption sustains a trafficking conviction on appeal.

This Court of Appeal decision is the third of three related criminal appeals by the same appellant, heard together, against convictions under seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952) entered at the High Court in Shah Alam. The aspect drawn out in this appeal is the operation of the statutory presumption of possession and knowledge under seksyen 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, and the adequacy of the appellant's defence to displace it. Once the prosecution proved that the appellant had custody or control of the thing containing the drugs, section 37(d) presumed him to have been in possession of, and to have known the nature of, the drugs, and it fell to him to rebut that presumption on a balance of probabilities rather than merely to raise a reasonable doubt. The trial judge had characterised the defence as a bare denial (penafian semata-mata), and the appellant's arguments about the absence of forensic linkage and an uncalled witness were also weighed. The panel of Hashim bin Hamzah, Azman bin Abdullah and Azmi bin Ariffin JJCA examined whether the appellant had adduced any credible evidence capable of displacing the presumption, or whether his account amounted only to an unsupported denial that could not meet the balance-of-probabilities standard. Reviewing the grounds of the High Court judge, the written and oral submissions and the evidence in its totality, the court concluded that the presumption under section 37(d) had not been rebutted and that the conviction was safe. It mengesahkan sabitan dan hukuman (affirmed the conviction and sentence) and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the decision below. The judgment is a useful illustration of the burden a section 37(d) presumption casts on an accused and why a bare denial will not discharge it. The court reiterated that a statutory presumption of this kind shifts a legal, and not merely an evidential, burden onto the accused, so that lingering doubt is not enough; the accused must positively prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not know the nature of what was in his custody.